Since you still haven’t responded to my earlier request for a cite I’ll assume you concede on that particular point. I’m interested in the following statement of yours:
As I’m unfamiliar with America’s response to the IRA post 9/11 perhaps you could provide me with a few cites?
Obviously terrorism is a very real threat. What do you propose America should do in order to minimize terrorist activity?
Certainly America shouldn’t be involved in supporting terrorism in any of it’s forms. However I don’t know that I’d necessarily agree with what you consider to be “supporting terrorism” as you haven’t really defined that clearly. What precisely do you consider to be Economic Terrorism?
Well bloom (and zombie, assuming you’re not the same person), I’m calling you a moron because by any definition of the term you are one. And not a small one either, but a rather large and impressive one. You have yet to respond to any of my points in any way that could be considered informed argument; instead, you’ve resorted to emoticons and vague references to whatever thought has floated into your head. I’ve heard you assert the US sponsored the IRA, that there’s some sort of conspiracy to build a pipeline across Afghanistan, and that the US and only the US practices something called ‘economic terrorism’ (whatever the hell that is). You have yet to offer any proof for any of this. My personal favorite is your ‘idea’, if something this ill-thought-out could be considered one, that the US shouldn’t wage war on terror because we didn’t destroy the IRA. I’m still waiting for a rationale for that particular gem, by the way. Anyway, sorry you’re offended I’m calling you a moron. Would it help if I called you an amusing moron?
The US did what it could within the limits of its laws, including making Noraid register as an agent of the IRA and prosecuting those suspected of gun-running. Sorry if that wasn’t enough for you but the US isn’t, or wasn’t a police state (unlike say Northern Ireland) and couldn’t go around throwing people in jail for supporting the 'Ra. If you are stupid enough to think that abiding by the terms of the Constitution equates to giving aid to terrorists, then I think you just might have a future in the Bush administration.
Whoa, stop and take a deep breath there, Guin. The only thing being stated here is the simple fact that the rate of death for US troops was lower on the front than at home. (I’ve always heard it slightly differently, using the death rate of American males 18-24 or something versus the troops on the front, rather than using actually stateside military deaths.)
You seem to have taken a simple statement of fact to be some kind of twisted endorsement for war. While I don’t think this stat is too relevant due to the fact that the war would be different this time around and probably involve more US casualties, I don’t think Brutus was doing anything more than pointing out the irony that at least in '91, worrying about your loved one overseas was in a strange way less necessary than worrying about them at home.
Groos Assumptions tend to make you look a Gross Ass!
Assume away darling - but just cos you don’t get a response on the time scale you belive to be right for you doesn’t mean that anyone concedes anything to you!
Some of us do have aother things to do don’t you know - and we aint bound by unpublished time limits that you ASSUME!
Please also do try to remember that it is not Just USA Time on this board - the world is bigger than America - and some of us are ahead of you in Both time zones and other things too!
It’s amazing. With each post, you make yourself look more stupid. And it’s not just your addiction to exclamation points. Grim Beaker (who’s been a model of diplomacy and restraint, IMO) isn’t the ass here.
I’m not going to apologize for making an assumption here because you have been less than civil. Seeing as how it’s the pit though I sort of expect it. Water off a duck’s back and all of that.
That being said I’d still like answers to the questions in my most recent post and a cite for your earlier declaration.